Pro bono is one of the most admirable things about the legal profession. Doctors literally save lives, yet they've got no equivalent ethical expectation to work for free. (OK, yes, I know some do, but still…)

Lawyers, however, routinely donate their time to further the interests of justice—and it's a beautiful thing.

Today's Daily Dicta features two major new pro bono wins. Together, they showcase Big Law at its finest.

|

A Historic Human Rights Win in Florida

Joseph L. Sorkin, left, of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld and Ilana Tabacinic, right, of Akerman.

When the ex-president of Bolivia and his minister of defense filed into a federal courthouse in Fort Lauderdale, Florida last month, it was the first time that a former head of state faced his accusers in a civil human rights trial in a U.S. court.

After a three week trial and more than a week of deliberations, the jury on Tuesday spoke: Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada and Carlos Sánchez Berzaín were responsible for a massacre that killed more than 50 of their country's citizens. The jurors awarded the victims' family members $10 million in compensatory damages.

Credit a pro bono team from Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld; Akerman; and Schonbrun Seplow Harris & Hoffman, along with the Center for Constitutional Rights and the International Human Rights Clinic at Harvard Law School for the historic win.

For Akin, which has been involved since the case began in 2007, it's been a major commitment of firm resources.

“It starts with Kim Koopersmith at the top,” said partner Joseph Sorkin, who served as lead trial counsel. “The firm has provided the support and commitment to pro bono matters necessary to see them through to completion.”

The case has been hard-fought from the beginning, with two trips to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The trial before U.S. District Judge James Cohn in the Southern District of Florida began on March 5, with the defendants represented by a formidable team from Williams & Connolly led by partners Stephen Raber and Ana Reyes.

The events that gave rise to the case are undeniably tragic. In 2003, Bolivia was wracked with civil unrest. The former president and defense minister allegedly devised a plan to kill thousands of civilians, using deadly force against political protests in an effort to quash political opposition.

Among those who were killed: An 8-year-old girl who was shot while looking out the window of her home, a pregnant woman who was killed by a bullet fired through a wall, a 69-year-old man killed along the roadside and another man who was shot while tending his crops.

In all, relatives of eight victims sued under the Torture Victims Protection Act, which authorizes suits in U.S. federal court for extrajudicial killings.

Key to the case: that both de Lozada and Berzaín had fled to the United States, living in Maryland and Florida respectively. Also important: that the government of Bolivia in 2008 waived immunity for both defendants.

For Sorkin, the verdict was deeply gratifying, but he is also mindful of what it means to the plaintiffs, who were present in court throughout the trial and suffered terrible losses.

“Anytime a U.S. jury recognizes that loss, and the wrongs associated with it, and holds a head of state accountable for it—that is quite a statement about what we believe is an appropriate way to govern citizens,” he said. “It's a dramatic statement about the beliefs we have. I don't think about it in terms of precedent or how it changes the law. I think about how it reinforces the beliefs and structures that we think are important.”

Other Akin lawyers who worked on the case include pro bono partner Steven Schulman; intellectual property partner Rubén Muñoz and counsel Jason Weil; litigation senior practice attorney Christine Doniak, counsel Jennifer Woodson and associates Saurabh Sharad, Zak Franklin, Erica Moran; and international trade counsel Maka Hutson.

Akerman partner Ilana Tabacinic was co-counsel at trial.

“Human rights pro bono work is necessary to protect vulnerable populations and ensure all persons have equal access to justice,” she said. “It has been an honor to assist the families who have long-awaited the verdict we achieved today.”

|

Orrick Wins Relief for Suffering Vets

L-r:Eric Shumsky and Mel Bostwick of Orrick.

“Oh it is real, it is the only real thing: Pain.”

So begins a poem by Robert Penn Warren that could describe a pro bono case by Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe on behalf of disabled veterans.

Orrick partners Melanie Bostwick and Eric Shumsky—appellate specialists who are both based in the firm's Washington, D.C. office—teamed up with the National Veterans Legal Services Program to score a precedent-setting win before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Tuesday.

They represented Melba Saunders, who served on active duty in the Army from November 1987 until October 1994. While in the Army, she began suffering from knee pain and swelling, which continued after she was discharged. It's limited her ability to do things like running, squatting, bending, and climbing stairs, or even to stand for more than a few minutes.

An examiner concluded the condition was likely related to Saunders's military service, but also found that she had no anatomic abnormality, weakness, or reduced range of motion.

What she has is pain.

But the Board of Veterans' Appeals said that wasn't enough—that “pain alone is not a disability for the purpose of VA disability compensation.”

The Federal Circuit disagreed. The panel—judges Kathleen O'Malley, Pauline Newman and Timothy Dyk—noted that “the term 'disability' refers to a functional impairment, rather than the underlying cause of the impairment….In other words, while a diagnosed condition may result in a disability, the disability itself need not be diagnosed.”

They also flagged the “purpose of veterans compensation: to compensate for impairment to a veteran's earning capacity.” That means a “disability” is the “functional impairment of earning capacity,” not whatever underlying condition it is that caused the problem.

And yes, pain counts.

“We conclude that pain is an impairment because it diminishes the body's ability to function, and that pain need not be diagnosed as connected to a current underlying condition to function as an impairment,” O'Malley wrote for the panel.

She added, “This holding is also supported by common sense.”

Just because a doctor can't provide an immediate diagnosis to explain your pain doesn't mean it's not real or that it won't impair your ability to earn a living.

But the court also cautioned this is not a free-for-all for every veteran to cry “ouch” and claim disability benefits.

“[N]othing in today's decision disturbs either of the other requirements for demonstrating entitlement to service connection—that the disability is linked to an inservice incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury,” the panel wrote. “We do not hold that a veteran could demonstrate service connection simply by asserting subjective pain—to establish a disability, the veteran's pain must amount to a functional impairment.”

|

Lateral Watch

King & Spalding in rapid succession has picked off two top IP litigators from Cooley.

James Brogan, who chaired Cooley's IP practice from 2012 to 2016, is the latest to make the jump, following the arrival in February of Thomas Friel, himself a former Cooley IP head.

On Wisconsin!

He faces 25-99 years or life in prison, though he has filed a motion asking the jury to consider sentencing him to probation.

“Working for a company that does business with the federal government should provide you with greater opportunities, but it should never limit your ability to criticize that government in your private time.”

Federal prosecutions for white-collar offenses have fallen below 6,000 per annum for the first time in 20 years.

The firm was represented by Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher in the appeal.

LOL good luck with that injunction.

“Though eager to acquire Mr. Lorig's book of business, the Defendants soon found that they preferred to cast aside an employee they regarded as too old and too disabled to remain with the firm.”

Yes. Yes. Yes.

I'm still processing the fact that his apartment is rent-stabilized—and that the rent is $25,000 a month.